Paul and Madeline

[swatkat]

Since we were talking about harshness - are we, the Michael/Nikita fans, too harsh when it comes to Paul and Madeline? Even those of us who actually like and admire them (including myself)? We're always going on about their cruelty and how Michael or Nikita (Nikita for me *g*) would've done a better job as Operations - why is that so? Now that we know all about Oversight and Centre, wasn't what Paul and Madeline did for their own survival, just like the way Michael and Nikita fought to survive in Section? And what is the guarantee that Michael and Nikita wouldn't do the exact same things when they got the power? Your thoughts here. *g*

Nell, tell me why Nikita wouldn't fall in the same trap as Paul in order to survive.

Comments

Pitching in

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Because I can't resist. *g* And because I'm still trying to stick with my new perspective.

But I still don't quite buy it. I think you can't run a successful organization with only the stick and no carrots, only fear and no admiration/trust/loyalty - which is ultimately what Madeline and Paul were trying to do, and it failed dismally.

No, you can't. Not in the 'real' world - where the members of the organisation are working voluntarily, and where they have the rights of a normal of citizen - the freedom to quit when you're sick and tired of everything, the freedom to protest and demand action (Yes, Nikita did protest - but what good did her protests do? Section never changed its policy, did it?). But given the nature and structure of Section, it seems that all sticks was the policy they were supposed to follow in Section. There were people above them who could replace them when the screwed up (that's what happened in the end I guess, but it's a lot more complicated than that).

So the question comes to, do you think Section could function in any other way? That, given the nature of the organisation, it would actually be possible to reach a normal degree of trust, commitment and all the other things and still keep the place running? Because Section didn't fail. Adrian, and then Paul and Madeline were removed - but Section was not.

I know I'm going to sound more like Rox than makes me comfortable here (!), but military organizations - which do have and do use the power to order people to their deaths - have long believed/learned/believed again that loyalty and morale are essential elements to the successful prosecution of wars/missions. I could never figure out why Paul, proud former US soldier that he was, seemed to think he could get by without those things.

I'm not a Paul expert, but here goes. I think Paul believed in all the principles that form the base of an organisation like the US army, and he upheld them in his army days. I also think that army and Section are two inherently different organisations - what works in the army will not work in Section. Paul probably felt the same way, and had two different sets of rules, one for his former life, and the other for his role as Operations in Section.

Swatkat

[nell65.livejournal.com]

No, you can't. Not in the 'real' world - where the members of the organisation are working voluntarily, and where they have the rights of a normal of citizen - the freedom to quit when you're sick and tired of everything, the freedom to protest and demand action (Yes, Nikita did protest - but what good did her protests do? Section never changed its policy, did it?).

Personal issue here - but as someone who makes a living as a college professor I'm frequently accused of 'not living in the real world' - an accusation that drives me crazy. I always ask snarkily if they think then that perhaps I earn a pretend salary to pay my imaginary taxes and the imaginary mortgage on my fantasy home while I dicker with an illusuory bank to pay for my invisible car. Not to mention caring for the children who are nothing but figments of my idle daydreams.

Accepting of course, always, that this is a fictional situation, I see a Section that is as "real" as anything else that involves live human beings.

So, I don't think that the observations of how people function best - in small groups with a sense of control over their own destinies in a relatively consistent environment - suddenly become moot just because we're talking about a super secret organization or because we're talking about people with criminal activities of some sort or another in their past.

But given the nature and structure of Section, it seems that all sticks was the policy they were supposed to follow in Section.

No it didn't. They had carrots. Madeline and Paul handed out vacations, promotions, down time, spy peeks on family/loved ones, dates, little luxuries in housing/cars/stuff etc...whenever it seemed to suit their purposes.

So the question comes to, do you think Section could function in any other way?

Obviously - yes, I do. I don't think anything is pre-determined or fixed in time and space.

That, given the nature of the organisation, it would actually be possible to reach a normal degree of trust, commitment and all the other things and still keep the place running?

What's normal? No - I don't think Section could look exactly like a business school plan for those things. But I do think Paul and Madeline could have fostered more respect, trust and committment than they did (how much really would it have taken to go from none to some?) - and that it would have improved their bottom line - and their own survival - if they had done so.

If this makes me unneccesarily harsh about them - well, I guess I'll live with that! *g*

Nell

Help! I can't stop! Part One.

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Corman was the poor Birkoff replacement who figured out what was going on in the Catch a Falling Star ep - the one in 'Tennessee' with the downed satalite.

LOL, that’s an episode I’ve tried to push as far out of my mind as possible -- I think it might make the number one position in my list of the worst LFN eps of all time. No, wait, the one where Nikita was kidnapped and held in a basement was the worst. *Rolls eyes*

>>I don't think the vast majority of it was capricious, in the sense of it being simply on a personal whim (although there was some of that).<<

I think there was enough to undermine any respect for the system.

And I don’t. I also don’t think the system would have had any respect even in its absence. And that, quite obviously, is where we’ll have to differ. Which is no problem -- it’s been fun hashing it out this far. *g*

>>I think it was capricious in the sense of being used against people who had committed all sorts of minor errors -- but that seems to have been built into the system.<<

Perhaps - but that also passes the buck from Madeline and Paul, which I'm not keen to do.

Poo! You’re no fun at all. What’s the good of this if I can’t lure you over to the Dark Side, hm?

Seriously though, my position, so that we can be clear, is this: (1) Paul and Madeline were not perfect leaders, even accounting for the handicaps that they operated under, but to place the *bulk* of the blame for Section’s dysfunctions on them individually is incorrect and unfair; and (2) even their mistakes and instances of abusive behavior were in large part a natural outgrowth of being forced to operate over the long term in the dysfunctional environment imposed upon them from above -- very few, if any, people in their positions would be able to resist the temptation to act in a similar way. The problem in Section is thus mostly systemic, and not personal, and therefore would not be cured merely by replacing the leadership. The nature of some of the abuses might change depending on the quirks of the leader, but it’s never going to be a healthy place.

Paul made a big deal about how much power he had more than once, so he can take the rap too, however much he didn't like that part.

Well, my argument is not that he should be deemed blameless, but that the blame also needs to be shared among other people -- something very few HRs seem willing to do. Hence my conclusion that many HRs are somewhat one-sided. I think in large part it is because if they conceded my point about the systemic nature of the problem, that would mean that Bulletproof!Michael or Saint!Nikita might actually succumb to the same kinds of pressures/temptations that led Paul and Madeline astray if they took over -- I know you’ve conceded this possibility, Nell, but most others don’t, and there are times it drives me batty.

Paul was free to use and interpret the cancellation option however he wanted, and unless we posit that Center had a 'cancellation' quota he had to meet, he could choose how frequently he turned to that tool - and he choose to use it often (though I'm not sure I think he used it as often as once a week! But then, I think Section was a lot smaller than you do, I think.....).

We don’t know how much scope he really had, nor how much his practices were being measured either in comparison either to the other Sections and/or to statistical predictions of expected attrition rates. Judging by the outsiders that they brought into Section from other parts of the organization (Petrosian during S2, and the two people who were being considered as Paul’s replacement in S5), people in other parts of the organization were equally if not more bloodthirsty. And when your own neck is on the line, you don’t want to be seen as unusually lenient or lax compared to others.

Re: Help! I can't stop! Part Two.

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

And slave/conscript armies have different structures and discpline issues - but respect for officers and morale turns out to matter even in those armies.

You’re the historian, so I’ll have to defer here, but my impression of such armies is that they were indeed run in large part on brutality and intimidation -- and relied on the fact that the conscripts/slaves often had no other options in society or places to escape to. And that corruption and abuse among officers/commanders was in fact commonplace if not the norm. In other words, they were run very much like Section.

Some historians of the Vietnam era army would tell you that mutinies were nearly out of control as it was - not of the group rebellion kind, but of the simple refusal kind. That the high levels of drug and alchool use and abuse and consequent unfitness for duty were a form of mutiny, and while I'm sure the stories have grown in the telling there were enough instances of soldiers killing their own officers while 'in the field' that it kept everybody looking over their shoulders. If you think you might die before your term is up - it is a life sentence.

That was exactly my point. If you had that much trouble building loyalty there, just imagine what it would be like in Section!

No - it doesn't. The whole point of conscript armies most of the time is to pull into service those the leaders of a society/nation feel are most expendible. During WWI, in the US - Selective Service drafted overwhelmingly single, young, uneducated men from rural areas.

Ah, I should have been clearer in my statement. I didn’t mean cross-section in terms of age, race, gender or economic strata, but rather in terms of psychological profiles. A group of conscripted civilians, even drawn from the narrow group you define, is going to have a very different psychological range from a group of convicted felons.

I would guess that Section had to be very careful of the kinds of criminals it selected to recruit and train, and people with obedience and self-control problems would probably be far down on their list, barring other qualities they were interested in.

On average, a group of criminals is simply going to have more of those problems than a group of non-criminals, and no amount of care in their selection is going to eliminate that problem.

But even so, I don't think loyalty would be as big a problem as you do - I think people *want* to be loyal and to belong (those who don't actually get labeled as psychologically ill....), and one of the things that drove section operatives batty was that this desire was constantly stifled/rebuffed in Section as we saw it.

I don’t think the drive to be loyal is particularly strong one, and especially not in people who have already demonstrated a criminal disregard for others. I think what drove them batty was the constant fear for their lives.

Part Three -- my last post today, I swear!

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Most of the post-operation studies, starting with WWII, suggest that overwhelmingly, men fight and die for the others in their unit - and not for patriotism or the defense of family. They are loyal to each other, they trust each other, and their morale depends on how they feel they, as a group, are being treated by their superiors. This turns out to be equally true of draftees and volunteers.

The shared experience of abuse by superiors can actually create small-unit loyalty. That’s in part why drill sergeants behave the way they do.

Small group loyalty is the glue that holds armies together - huge to tiny. (It is also the foundation of many criminal gangs and terrorist cells - for the same reasons.) I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work in Section too.

It often doesn’t work very well, especially in criminal gangs and terrorist cells (which are probably closer analogies to Section than a military unit, in many ways) -- factionalism and coups and fights for seniority are very common.

I think Section could also have fostered an "elite of the elite badasses of the world attitude" - a "no one else is tough enough to risk death daily we the unsung heroes!" 'tude; plus a 'no one else will ever understand/value you the way we do' vibe.

I disagree. The minute you have to cancel one of them for anything less than a horrific error you undermine the pretense at valuing them. The reaction would be something along the lines of: “Hypocrites! They talk about how much they appreciate us, but look what they did to Freddy!” It’s a losing battle.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Personal issue here - but as someone who makes a living as a college professor I'm frequently accused of 'not living in the real world' - an accusation that drives me crazy.

Uh, hope I didn't offend with that one. And I don't know, for a person 'not living in the real world', you seem to have surprisingly good grasp of reality. Actually, a lot better than some of us who *do* live in the real world. *g*

Accepting of course, always, that this is a fictional situation, I see a Section that is as "real" as anything else that involves live human beings.

So, I don't think that the observations of how people function best - in small groups with a sense of control over their own destinies in a relatively consistent environment - suddenly become moot just because we're talking about a super secret organization or because we're talking about people with criminal activities of some sort or another in their past.

That definitely makes a lot of sense. But it always seemed that Section was never particularly focused on human behaviour. I also agree with your point that it causes pointless waste of valuable resources. But was it in P&M's power to alter that policy?

Swatkat

No! You didn't offend!

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Not in the slightest.

But I wanted any excessive vehemence clearly related to *my* issues and not the question of a fictional Section. *g*

But was it in P&M's power to alter that policy?

Honestly? I haven't a frigging clue. I suspect Jaybee would say not much...

Me? I'm still feeling my way on the relationships between Section/Center/Oversight/The Agency - I suspect I may be crediting Paul and Madeline with more power than they had only because we met so few of the other people above them - and George ended up seeming mildly ineffectual and Daddy was a nutter, so it's hard for me to credit them with having much to say about the day to day functioning of Section.

Here's a good spot for me to wrap up, LOL

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

**But was it in P&M's power to alter that policy?**

Honestly? I haven't a frigging clue. I suspect Jaybee would say not much...

Me? I'm still feeling my way on the relationships between Section/Center/Oversight/The Agency - I suspect I may be crediting Paul and Madeline with more power than they had only because we met so few of the other people above them - and George ended up seeming mildly ineffectual and Daddy was a nutter, so it's hard for me to credit them with having much to say about the day to day functioning of Section.

This comes pretty close to what I've been trying to get across as my definition of “being too harsh” on P&M. *Not* the idea of criticizing them per se, because that’s entirely fair. Rather, “too harsh” is the habit of automatically assigning blame to them in every single instance where the evidence is actually ambiguous -- and without even acknowledging that the assignment is based on an *assumption* and not proven fact. I see that kind of “default automatic presumption of guilt” employed all the time (I'm not trying to pick on you Nell, because you at least concede the potential existence of alternatives) -- and yes, it does annoy me at times, LOL.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

This comes pretty close to what I've been trying to get across as my definition of “being too harsh” on P&M. *Not* the idea of criticizing them per se, because that’s entirely fair.

Good. Glad to know it. ;)

Cause sometimes it has seemed like my major criticisms are countered with 'it was Center/the system's fault.'

Rather, “too harsh” is the habit of automatically assigning blame to them in every single instance where the evidence is actually ambiguous -- and without even acknowledging that the assignment is based on an *assumption* and not proven fact.

It's all assumptions - including the assumption that their hands were tied with regard to how they treated their people. But one of the things that makes me think they had a range of options was that they weren't consistent over time - sometimes seeming to offer rewards, other times demanding them back, sometimes seeming to invivte input from operatives, other times absolutley refusing it, sometimes looking the other way over petty infractions, other times coming down like a ton of bricks, etc....

I see that kind of “default automatic presumption of guilt” employed all the time (I'm not trying to pick on you Nell, because you at least concede the potential existence of alternatives) -- and yes, it does annoy me at times, LOL.

I don't actually think Madeline and Paul did poorly as leaders of Section - I think they accomplished a great deal. I happen to believe that they could have accomplished even more if they had worked to find a way to have their operatives work with them instead of against them whenever they were in trouble.

What annoys me is the notion that they represent some sort of pinacle of unflawed success and set a standard for successful leadership that no-one else - namely Niktia and/or Michael - could possibly meet.

They made decisions I question, I don't think - given the evidence we had to work with - that they *had* to treat their operatives with as much callousness as they did, and I think that the steady level of betrayal they faced - which undermined their mission success - was an indicator that they were not doing as well as they could.

One last time, maybe? LOL

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

sometimes it has seemed like my major criticisms are countered with 'it was Center/the system's fault.'

I *have* made that counter to some of your criticisms, and I hate to tell you this, but I probably will continue to do so. *eg* It happens to be my opinion, based on assumptions *I* choose to make and my best reading of canon. But I’ve always tried to make it very clear that I am aware that I am engaging in assumptions and interpretation -- which is a sense I don’t get from some HRs, who can sometimes seem serenely and rather smugly convinced of their absolute rightness at all times. I’m not lumping you in with them Nell, because you actually don’t fit this category, but because you’re the only one here really taking the HR side of things, you get to bear the brunt of my complaint. LOL.

I don't actually think Madeline and Paul did poorly as leaders of Section - I think they accomplished a great deal.

I am actually very surprised to read this. Seriously. It’s not at *all* close to what I thought your opinion was.

I happen to believe that they could have accomplished even more if they had worked to find a way to have their operatives work with them instead of against them whenever they were in trouble.

Maybe. But I’m somewhat skeptical.

What annoys me is the notion that they represent some sort of pinacle of unflawed success and set a standard for successful leadership that no-one else - namely Niktia and/or Michael - could possibly meet.

I’ve certainly never posited that notion. Rather, my whole point is countering what I think is the almost universal position taken by HRs: that not only will Michael and/or Nikita meet that standard, they will *necessarily* exceed it, because they are inherently superior people (morally, intellectually, etc., take your pick). *I* think the jury is out on that one.

They made decisions I question, I don't think - given the evidence we had to work with - that they *had* to treat their operatives with as much callousness as they did, and I think that the steady level of betrayal they faced - which undermined their mission success - was an indicator that they were not doing as well as they could.

Anyone’s performance can always be improved upon. Maybe a different strategy in that regard would have worked, maybe not. I *don’t* think it would have assisted in their survival in the end, but that’s clearly a matter of opinion.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I *have* made that counter to some of your criticisms, and I hate to tell you this, but I probably will continue to do so. *eg*

That's cool - now I'm much clearer about your position.

I'm currently quite in the dark about section/center etc... - and so I don't have a clear vision AT ALL about how they opperated; so blaming a system I don't understand frustrates me no end - it is easier for me to concentrate on the individuals within the structure.

It happens to be my opinion, based on assumptions *I* choose to make and my best reading of canon. But I’ve always tried to make it very clear that I am aware that I am engaging in assumptions and interpretation -- which is a sense I don’t get from some HRs, who can sometimes seem serenely and rather smugly convinced of their absolute rightness at all times. I’m not lumping you in with them Nell, because you actually don’t fit this category, but because you’re the only one here really taking the HR side of things, you get to bear the brunt of my complaint. LOL.

Eh. I can take it. The whole "god like" Michael crowd makes me gag too. Though I have to say, I haven't read all that many Post S5 stories - even from HRs - which posit a Nikita fully capable of runing section independently. Most suggest she is in over her head and needs lover boy back in the saddle to survive. Feh.

I am actually very surprised to read this. Seriously. It’s not at *all* close to what I thought your opinion was.

Well the thread *did* start as one dealing with criticism of Madeline and Paul! LOL!

Actually - I haven't replied to your comments from yesterday yet because I was (am?) thinking of starting again - perhaps in my own lj (*g* sorry for being such space hogs, Swatkat) - listing what I thought was good about Madeline and Paul so that my criticisms of them would have a context, and why I thought they had the capicity to make different choices at some crucial moments and why it frustrated me that they made the ones they did.

I’ve certainly never posited that notion.

No, you haven't. *g*

But others have, and I have probably been guilty of using you as a proxy for them.

Rather, my whole point is countering what I think is the almost universal position taken by HRs: that not only will Michael and/or Nikita meet that standard, they will *necessarily* exceed it, because they are inherently superior people (morally, intellectually, etc., take your pick). *I* think the jury is out on that one.

Actually, the dominate HR position is that *Michael* will necessarily exceed Madeline and Paul (where they don't turn out to be closet 'good guys' all along). Most HRs are really DOMs who've learned not to insult the fandom with Marysues. Most HRs who will talk about it appear to be as dismissive as Cyanide of Nikita's abilities.

So I suppose I've also been using you as a proxy for them too... sorry 'bout that.

I do think that, being flawed human beings, Michael and Nikita, together or alone, would make mistakes runing section - perhaps fatal (to them anyway) ones, just as Madeline and Paul did (or, the system will crush them or they will run up against a new Mr Jones figure...) in any case, their success isn't guarunteed by any means.

Behold! We've reached agreement! Heh heh...

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

I do think that, being flawed human beings, Michael and Nikita, together or alone, would make mistakes runing section - perhaps fatal (to them anyway) ones, just as Madeline and Paul did (or, the system will crush them or they will run up against a new Mr Jones figure...) in any case, their success isn't guarunteed by any means.

That's really all I've ever been trying to say, LOL.

Hey...listen! That thudding sound is the entire fandom fainting away at the thought of us finally reaching the same conclusion. *g*

As for you missy,

[nell65.livejournal.com]

you know perfectly well we were here before we began.

It is the journey that is interesting, not the destination. LOL!

Nell